Personality and Duodenal Ulcer Response to Antisecretory Treatment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two groups of duodenal ulcer (DU) patients, responders and nonresponders, have been compared in order to verify if psychological factors are linked to relapse. Responders are defined as those patients who on endoscopy did not present proven relapse during treatment with maintenance doses of antisecretory drugs (cimetidine 400 mg/day, ranitidine 150 mg/day, pirenzepine 50 mg/day) for a period of 12 months after healing of the lesion. Nonresponders were all patients presenting with at least one relapse during treatment with antisecretory drugs. One hundred and twelve DU patients (81 responders, 31 nonresponders) were examined with the Cattell 16 Personality Factors Questionnaire (16PF) form C. There were no significant differences between the two groups for age, sex, duration of illness and type of drug treatment. The 16 PF scores of responders and nonresponders were not statistically different except in the case of factor E (dominance), in which the nonresponder subjects scored higher than responder subjects (p less than 0.01). However, when the significance level was corrected for the number of variables involved, the above finding is not considered to be meaningful.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it